Rethinking Moving beyond Deterrence: A Partial Replication Study
| Date | 01 May 2022 |
| DOI | 10.1177/14789299211014011 |
| Published date | 01 May 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Early Results |
https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299211014011
Political Studies Review
2022, Vol. 20(2) 292 –303
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/14789299211014011
journals.sagepub.com/home/psrev
Rethinking Moving beyond
Deterrence: A Partial
Replication Study
Eitan Alimi1 and Gregory Maney
(1967-2017)2
Abstract
We assess Dugan and Chenoweth’s Rational Choice-based argument regarding moderating
effects of indiscriminate conciliatory state actions on levels of terrorist attacks in Israel-Palestine,
utilizing data drawn primarily from declassified security records on Israeli state actions during the
First Intifada (1987–1992). This type of data source, we argue, contains a more accurate ratio of
conciliatory to repressive actions than Dugan and Chenoweth’s media-based data, given state
authorities’ attempts at concealing repressive actions while publicizing conciliatory actions during
times of intense conflict. We discuss differences in results—including, most centrally, no support
for the hypothesized effect of conciliatory state actions—highlighting the theoretical payoffs of
examining the Political Process–related factor of varying levels of state control over the political
environment.
Keywords
terrorism, contentious politics, deterrence, state control, Israel-Palestine
Accepted: 12 April 2021
In an innovative article, Dugan and Chenoweth (2012) argue that states seeking to design
effective counterterrorism strategies should consider moving beyond the sole reliance on
repression as a means of reducing the expected utility of engaging in terrorism, to offer
conciliatory actions as a means of raising the expected utility of abstaining from terror-
ism. They argue further that offering indiscriminate conciliatory actions as rewards pro-
duces a larger decrease in terrorism than more discriminating rewarding measures.
Moreover, indiscriminate conciliatory actions produce a larger decrease in terrorism than
either discriminate or indiscriminate repressive measures. The rational choice logic
underlying these arguments is as follows: While not necessarily offsetting grievances,
offering conciliatory actions as rewards indiscriminately would improve upon the status
1Department of Sociology and Anthropology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus,
Jerusalem, Israel
2Department of Sociology, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, USA
Corresponding author:
Eitan Alimi, Department of Sociology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mt Scopus, Jerusalem 91905, Israel.
Email: Eitan.Alimi@mail.huji.ac.il
1014011PSW0010.1177/14789299211014011Political Studies ReviewAlimi and Maney
research-article2021
Early Results
To continue reading
Request your trial